Free will--a Calvinistic proposition?

[justbyfaith]

And of course, again, Calvin dost protest too much, as his doctrines often deny man the capacity of free will.

Prove it.

Here, I want to give Calvinists the opportunity to express agreement or disagreement with Josheb here

when he says that Calvinism teaches that mankind has free will.

 

[Josheb]

Shifting onus.

This op stems from comments you, @justbyfaith made that were not evidenced, much less proven. You are supposed to be responsible for, culpable for, and accountable for your own words in your own posts and here you are trying to foist the responsibility for proving your own claims onto others.

You are not giving Cal an opportunity. You are shirking your responsibility.

 

[justbyfaith]

Shifting onus.

This op stems from comments you, @justbyfaith made that were not evidenced, much less proven. You are supposed to be responsible for, culpable for, and accountable for your own words in your own posts and here you are trying to foist the responsibility for proving your own claims onto others.

You are not giving Cal an opportunity. You are shirking your responsibility.

I am just wanting to see what certain Calvinists will say on this subject so that it can be proven what you have asked me to prove within the other thread.

 

[Josheb]

I am just wanting to see what certain Calvinists will say on this subject so that it can be proven what you have asked me to prove within the other thread.

And doing so in neglect of taking responsibility for your own posts where the original disagreement occurred.

Btw, you should link the quotes in this opening post to their original source in the other thread.

 

[justbyfaith]

As Arial, a Calvinist, said here:

Thread Title: What is Free Will?

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/what-s-free-will.1082/

Truthfully, there is no such thing.

 

[justbyfaith]

And doing so in neglect of taking responsibility for your own posts where the original disagreement occurred.

Btw, you should link the quotes in this opening post to their original source in the other thread.

There is a fifteen minute time limit on that, so, no go.

 

[Arial]

As Arial, a Calvinist, said here:

Thread Title: What is Free Will?

https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/what-s-free-will.1082/

Now, put it into its context. You do the same thing when you interpret the Bible. Just bits and pieces, one from here another out of the middle of there to make things say whatever you want them to say.

And if you are not a troll, why do you begin thread after thread on Calvinism and use it as a platform to ridicule the theology by misstating it and misrepresenting what Calvinists say----and never ever listen to or accept a single thing they say? Never supporting what you say. Being a troll is a permanent banning offense, so I suggest you cut it out. Patience is running thin. This thread will probably be taken down altogether, unless you straighten up.

 

[Josheb]

There is a fifteen minute time limit on that, so, no go.

Then ask the Mods to delete this thread and start over with a corrected op before this one gets too long.


For future reference, it is always best to ASK what others believe rather than tell others what they believe. This op asked questions, so I (incorrectly) believed there was a genuine interest in the answers. When Calvinists want to know what Arminians think or believe and Arminians want to know what Calvinists think or believe then it is best to ask a specific question and then discuss the answer in a manner reflecting genuine interest in the answer and sincere regard for others. When claims are made about others' beliefs without evidence that is baselessness. It reads as an accusation, a baseless accusation. Evidence from oppositionally biased sources read as "triangulation," an implicit attempt to use a not-present other to team up against another. "I and another guy I just quoted say you are wrong." Whether that's the intent or not, that's how such posts read. As I stated earlier, the use of other sources also runs the risk of creating appeals to authority and digression because for every ten would be authorities on X you provide, I can prove ten, too. In the ensuing trade the original inquiry and answer are lost, along with the cogent discussion. Cals who do this are no better than Arms who do this.

In the other thread a question was asked, "What does every Calvinist here have to say of the following proposition?" and my answer to the question asked specifically about the specified proposition was completely ignored. That was all on you, @justbyfaith.

• The question was asked. Good!
• The question was answered. Good!
• The answer was ignored. Not good .

Accurate in as much as it says but things that are incomplete also tend to be incorrect because of the incompleteness. We would not properly call an object with wings and a tail but no engine or flight instruments an "airplane." What's missing are the causes and reasons how and why a person stands outside the door, sees the writing on the door top, understands them, and enters therein. Calvinists (and other monergists) will say all of that is caused by God and not the unregenerate nonbeliever's sinfully dead and enslaved flesh.​

There was plenty of op-relevant content to discuss and it wasn't touched. That failure is all on you. Go back to that thread and count the number of times your posts use the word "Calvinists" to tell other Calvinists what they believe and think for a moment how that reads. Count how many times "Some Calvinists" is used to implicate all Calvinists (my count is six) and think how that reads. If you want better discussion, then start with yourself.

 

[justbyfaith]

deleted for violation of rules 2,6,7,18

 

[justbyfaith]

Then ask the Mods to delete this thread and start over with a corrected op before this one gets too long.


For future reference, it is always best to ASK what others believe rather than tell others what they believe. This op asked questions, so I (incorrectly) believed there was a genuine interest in the answers. When Calvinists want to know what Arminians think or believe and Arminians want to know what Calvinists think or believe then it is best to ask a specific question and then discuss the answer in a manner reflecting genuine interest in the answer and sincere regard for others. When claims are made about others' beliefs without evidence that is baselessness. It reads as an accusation, a baseless accusation. Evidence from oppositionally biased sources read as "triangulation," an implicit attempt to use a not-present other to team up against another. "I and another guy I just quoted say you are wrong." Whether that's the intent or not, that's how such posts read. As I stated earlier, the use of other sources also runs the risk of creating appeals to authority and digression because for every ten would be authorities on X you provide, I can prove ten, too. In the ensuing trade the original inquiry and answer are lost, along with the cogent discussion. Cals who do this are no better than Arms who do this.

In the other thread a question was asked, "What does every Calvinist here have to say of the following proposition?" and my answer to the question asked specifically about the specified proposition was completely ignored. That was all on you, @justbyfaith.

• The question was asked. Good!
• The question was answered. Good!
• The answer was ignored. Not good .

Accurate in as much as it says but things that are incomplete also tend to be incorrect because of the incompleteness. We would not properly call an object with wings and a tail but no engine or flight instruments an "airplane." What's missing are the causes and reasons how and why a person stands outside the door, sees the writing on the door top, understands them, and enters therein. Calvinists (and other monergists) will say all of that is caused by God and not the unregenerate nonbeliever's sinfully dead and enslaved flesh.​

There was plenty of op-relevant content to discuss and it wasn't touched. That failure is all on you. Go back to that thread and count the number of times your posts use the word "Calvinists" to tell other Calvinists what they believe and think for a moment how that reads. Count how many times "Some Calvinists" is used to implicate all Calvinists (my count is six) and think how that reads. If you want better discussion, then start with yourself.

But there is disparity in what all of you believe.

It would be tedious to deal with every one of you individually, since you all seem to have different beliefs.

Therefore, I am going to make my last post a thread on the disparity in Calvinism and then leave these boards so that the blind can be leaders of the blind.

 

[Josheb]

It's alright, I know when I am wearing out my welcome.

The posts prove otherwise.

You are invited to discuss any matter you like when taking responsibility for your own posts and not incorrectly telling others what they believe. Everyone here welcomes that kind of conversation and that welcome never wears out. Scapegoating and gaslighting, however, are never welcome.

When certain moderators have begun to hate me, I know that my time at a website is short.

Every hateful but you, right?

I will probably just let this be my last post, therefore.

Instead of doing what is right.


The fact is you were asked to prove Calvin's doctrines often deny man the capacity of free will and you did not provide any such proof. No one stopped you from doing so but you and now everyone is called haters. Wouldn't it have been much easier and more conducive to discourse to just provide an example of Calvin doing what was claimed?

 

[justbyfaith]

The fact is you were asked to prove Calvin's doctrines often deny man the capacity of free will and you did not provide any such proof.

I showed forth Arial's belief that free will is non-existent. She is a Calvinist.

But according to you, what Calvinists believe is not the teaching of Calvinism.

 

[justbyfaith]

All of a sudden I am violating a bunch of rules and I am doing nothing different than what I have always done.

Is this not because there is a bounty on my head?

I will not be posting here much longer.

 

[Josheb]

But there is disparity in what all of you believe.

Yes, there is. I wrote an op about this in CARM. And you can decide for yourself whether or not the Cals there were capable of cogent discourse.

It would be tedious to deal with every one of you individually, since you all seem to have different beliefs.

Do you understand the concept of "doctrine"? Do you understand the label "Calvinism" is used as a term representative of what is more accurately called "monergism," and it includes views held by a diverse set of theologians that include but are not limited to Augustine and Luther. Calvinism is diverse, not monolithic. Arminianism is diverse and not monolithic. Traditionalism is much less diverse, but still diverse and not monolithic. The reason Calvinists here in CCCF and in CARM (and Puritan Board and every other Christian forum in the entire world) can discuss Calvinism with both our common ground and our different views is because we correctly grasp the core concepts. That gaining facts, truth, knowledge, and understanding is sometimes tedious is not a reason to avoid doing the work. It's a cop out.

Therefore, I am going to make my last post a thread on the disparity in Calvinism and then leave these boards so that the blind can be leaders of the blind.

Which simply means you are going to post a post without any intent to discuss it. That's completely disingenuous, and since it is openly declared prior to doing so it means you're a troll who accuses others of hate and inhospitality when the fact is you dropped into a forum with well-informed Cals and refused to rise to the opportunities available.

Do you think God might have had any purpose in you finding CCF? Do you think that purpose was to accuse Cals and never learn anything but Cals are haters? Did God bring you here to be hated?

Can you not see the insanity in that?

It's okay; I'm insane, too. I keep believing posters can and will show some sincere interest, manners, and respect when any opportunity to discuss doctrines of salvation avails itself and am quite often disappointed.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."(attributed to everyone from Ben Franklin to Albert Einstein)​

If you genuinely want to learn about Calvinism and have some of your questions answered the PM me. I'll go through the scriptures pertaining to any concept you like, one concept at a time, and while I will endeavor to build from consensus, I will not require you to agree with anything I post.

 

[David1701]

Here, I want to give Calvinists the opportunity to express agreement or disagreement with Josheb here

when he says that Calvinism teaches that mankind has free will.

What you quoted was an exhortation for you to prove your claim. I think that most here will agree that you should at least attempt to do so.

 

[Arial]

I showed forth Arial's belief that free will is non-existent. She is a Calvinist.

You need to start putting the @ in front of the name when you are talking about someone. That too is a forum rule. But this is what you showed.

From the thread I started on free will. "Truthfully there is no such thing." What followed is what you did not post, which began."And here is why."

I then proceeded to show that the will is free to make choices and does so. It chooses what it most desires. In this it is free. What it will not do is choose what it does not desire and cannot choose what it does not desire. In this it is not free to choose what it does not want to choose.

So you completely and intentionally distorted what I was saying in order to create a disparity that did not exist. It is either dishonest on purpose or just unaware that is what it is doing.

 

[justbyfaith]

What you quoted was an exhortation for you to prove your claim. I think that most here will agree that you should at least attempt to do so.

I did so; because I do not expect any Calvinist to post something that would defeat another Calvinist's contention in their post.

 

[justbyfaith]

You need to start putting the @ in front of the name when you are talking about someone. That too is a forum rule. But this is what you showed.

From the thread I started on free will. "Truthfully there is no such thing." What followed is what you did not post, which began."And here is why."

I then proceeded to show that the will is free to make choices and does so. It chooses what it most desires. In this it is free. What it will not do is choose what it does not desire and cannot choose what it does not desire. In this it is not free to choose what it does not want to choose.

So you completely and intentionally distorted what I was saying in order to create a disparity that did not exist. It is either dishonest on purpose or just unaware that is what it is doing.

Sorry, I simply read the beginning of your post because I was in a hurry.

However, you have to give me credit for providing a link to the post.

But of course according to what you just said, there is such a thing as free will...we are free to do what we want to do. While your beginning statement was that there is no such thing as free will.

Since you contradicted yourself and then accuse me of taking your words out of context, is not the fault in you (in that, you said two opposite things in order to cover your b*tt in case somebody might call you on it)? Which I did.

 

[Arial]

But of course according to what you just said, there is such a thing as free will...we are free to do what we want to do. While your beginning statement was that there is no such thing as free will.

Since you contradicted yourself and then accuse me of taking your words out of context, is not the fault in you (in that, you said two opposite things in order to cover your b*tt in case somebody might call you on it)? Which I did.

I did not contradict myself. Please stop misrepresenting what people say.

There is no such thing as free will.
It is free to choose what it desires.
It is not free to choose what it does not desire. If the will is restricted by anything it is not free. And what I said goes to the doctrine of utter depravity, that says we cannot choose Christ because we do not desire to. We are at enmity with God. Not only that a sinful being cannot approach a holy God without FIRST being cleansed.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Do you understand the concept of "doctrine"? Do you understand the label "Calvinism" is used as a term representative of what is more accurately called "monergism," and it includes views held by a diverse set of theologians that include but are not limited to Augustine and Luther. Calvinism is diverse, not monolithic. Arminianism is diverse and not monolithic. Traditionalism is much less diverse, but still diverse and not monolithic. The reason Calvinists here in CCCF and in CARM (and Puritan Board and every other Christian forum in the entire world) can discuss Calvinism with both our common ground and our different views is because we correctly grasp the core concepts.

❤❤❤